case study on reading intervention

Advertisement

The State of Current Reading Intervention Research for English Learners in Grades K–2: a Best-Evidence Synthesis

• Meta-Analysis
• Published: 10 July 2021
• Volume 34 , pages 335–361, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Garrett J. Roberts   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1128-5577 1 ,
• Colby Hall   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0779-1322 2 ,
• Eunsoo Cho   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8828-484X 3 ,
• Brooke Coté 1 ,
• Jihyun Lee   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0172-9106 4 ,
• Bingxin Qi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2732-641X 5 &
• Jacklyn Van Ooyik 1  

2307 Accesses

7 Citations

9 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

A Correction to this article was published on 09 August 2021

This article has been updated

This best-evidence synthesis reviews the past 20 years of rigorous reading intervention research to identify effective programs of instruction for Grade K–3 English Learners (ELs), as well as to determine the average effect of reading instruction on reading outcomes for this population. We identified 10 studies, all of which only included students in Grades K, 1, and/or 2. These studies evaluated the effects of seven programs, reporting 76 effect sizes. We did not identify any studies that included Grade 3 ELs. To guide researchers and practitioners, we describe each program and discuss associated effect sizes in foundational skills, fluency, comprehension, and oral language. Proactive Reading , delivered in a small group setting, produced some of the largest effects on foundational skills, fluency, and reading comprehension outcomes. Sound Partners was also shown to be effective even when delivered for a shorter duration, in a one-to-one setting. Finally, for practitioners and researchers aiming to improve oral language outcomes, Early Vocabulary Connection , delivered to small groups of students for 20 weeks, had the largest effects on oral language outcome measures. The primary limitation of this review was the small number of studies meeting the best-evidence synthesis criteria. Future research is needed to better understand the impact of reading interventions on reading outcomes for ELs in Grades 2–3 and the impact of meaning-focused intervention on reading outcomes. In particular, additional research is needed to identify interventions that have the potential to meaningfully improve reading comprehension and oral language outcomes for K–3 ELs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

The impact of tier 1 reading instruction on reading outcomes for students in grades 4–12: a meta-analysis.

Elizabeth Swanson, Elizabeth A. Stevens, … Christy R. Austin

Meta-Analyses of the Effects of Tier 2 Type Reading Interventions in Grades K-3

Jeanne Wanzek, Sharon Vaughn, … Philip Capin

Reading Instruction for English Learners in the Middle Grades: a Meta-Analysis

Colby Hall, Garrett J. Roberts, … Sharon Vaughn

Change history

09 august 2021.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09632-7

Note that standard errors may be unreliable when degrees of freedom is less than 4 in random effects model with RVE

Adams, G., & Engelmann, S. (1996). Research on direct instruction: 25 years beyond DISTAR . Educational Achievement Systems.

Adlof, S., & Catts, H. (2015). Morphosyntax in poor comprehenders. Reading and Writing, 28 (7), 1051–1070. https://doi.org/10.1007/11145.2015.95623 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Adlof, S., Catts, H., & Lee, J. (2010). Kindergarten predictors of second versus eighth grade reading comprehension impairments. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43 (4), 332–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222.2010.0369067 .

Al Otaiba, S., Connor, C. M., Foorman, B., Schatschneider, C., Greulich, L., & Sidler, J. F. (2009). Identifying and intervening with beginning readers who are at-risk for dyslexia: advances in individualized classroom instruction. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 35 , 13–19.

Google Scholar  

Babayiğit, S. (2014). The role of oral language skills in reading and listening comprehension of text: a comparison of monolingual (L1) and bilingual (L2) speakers of English language. Journal of Research in Reading, 37 (1), S22–S47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01538.x .

Baker, S., Lesaux, N., Jayanthi, M., Dimino, J., Proctor, C. P., Morris, J., Gersten, R., Haymond, K., Kieffer, M. J., Linan-Thompson, S., & Newman-Gonchar, R. (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (NCEE 2014-4012). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE website: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx .

*Baker, D., Burns, D., Kame’enui, E., Smolkowski, K., & Baker, S. (2016). Does supplemental instruction support the transition from Spanish to English reading instruction for first-grade English learners at risk of reading difficulties? Learning Disability Quarterly , 39 , 226-239. https://doi.org/10.1177/073.2016.715616757 , 4

Boscardin, C., Muthén, B., Francis, D., & Baker, E. (2008). Early identification of reading difficulties using heterogeneous developmental trajectories. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 (1), 192–208. https://doi.org/10.1037/00220663.100.1.192 .

Capps, R. (2005). The new demography of America’s schools . Urban Institute.

Chall, J. S., & Jacobs, V. A. (1983). Writing and reading in the elementary grades: developmental trends among low SES children. Language Arts, 60 , 617–626.

Cheung, A., & Slavin, R. E. (2005). Effective reading programs for English language learners and other language-minority students. Bilingual Research Journal, 29 (2), 241–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2005.10162835 .

Cheung, A., & Slavin, R. (2012). Effective reading programs for Spanish-dominant English language learners (ELLs) in the elementary grades. Review of Educational Research, 82 (4), 351–395. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312465472 .

Cho, E., Capin, P., Roberts, G., Roberts, G., & Vaughn, S. (2019). Examining sources and mechanisms of reading comprehension difficulties: comparing English learners and non-English learners within the simple view of reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111 (6), 982–1000. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000332 .

Daniel, S. S., Walsh, A. K., Goldston, D. B., Arnold, E. M., Reboussin, B. A., & Wood, F. B. (2006). Suicidality, school dropout, and reading problems among adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39 (6), 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390060301 .

Cosentino de Cohen, Deterding, C. N., & Clewell, B. C. (2005). Who’s left behind? Immigrant children in high and low LEP schools. Urban Institute (NJ3) .

*Ehri, L. C., Dreyer, L. G., Flugman, B., Gross, A. (2007). Reading rescue: an effective tutoring intervention model for language-minority students who are struggling readers in first grade. American Education Research Journal , 44 , 414-448. https://doi.org/10.3102/2F0002831207302175 , 2

Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2018). Learning disabilities: from identification to intervention . Guilford Publications.

*Foorman, B. R., Herrera, S., & Dombek, J. (2018). The relative impact of aligning tier 2 intervention materials with classroom core reading materials in grades K-2. The Elementary School Journal , 118 , 477-504. https://doi.org/10.1086/696021 , 3

Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Stuebing, K. K., Shaywitz, B. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: a longitudinal, individual growth curves analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88 (1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/00220663.88.1.3 .

Fry, R., & Gonzales, F. (2008). One-in-five and growing fast: a profile of Hispanic public school students. Pew Research Center.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Al Otaiba, S., Thompson, A., Yen, L., McMaster, K. N., Svenson, E., & Yang, N. J. (2001). K-PALS: Helping kindergartners with reading readiness: teachers and researchers in partnerships. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33 (4), 76–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F004005990103300411 .

Gersten, R., Haymond, K., Newman-Gonchar, R., Dimino, J., & Jayanthi, M. (2020). Meta-analysis of the impact of reading interventions for students in the primary grades. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13 (2), 401–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2019.1689591 .

Gottardo, A., Mirza, A., Koh, P. W., Ferreira, A., & Javier, C. (2018). Unpacking listening comprehension: the role of vocabulary, morphological awareness, and syntactic knowledge in reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 31 (8), 1741–1764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9736-2 .

Grant, A., Gottardo, A., & Geva, E. (2011). Reading in English as a first or second language: the case of grade 3 Spanish, Portuguese, and English speakers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26 (2), 67–83.

Greenberg, E., Dunleavy, E., & Kutner, M. (2007). Literacy behind bars: results from the 2003 national assessment of adult literacy prison survey. NCES 2007-473. National Center for Education Statistics.

Hall, C., Roberts, G. J., Cho, E., McCulley, L. M., Carroll, M., & Vaughn, S. (2017). Reading instruction for English language learners in the middle grades: a synthesis of the research. Educational Psychology Review, 29 (4), 763–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9372-4 .

Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6 (2), 107–128.

Hedges, L. V., Tipton, E., & Johnson, M. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1 (1), 39–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.5 .

Hernandez, D. J. (2011). Double jeopardy: how third-grade reading skills and poverty influence high school graduation . Annie E. Casey Foundation. http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-Double-Jeopardy-2012-Full.pdf

Hernandez, D. J., Denton, N. A., & Macartney, S. E. (2008). Children in immigrant families: looking to America’s future. Society for Research in Child Development, 22 , 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.23793988.2008.tb00056.x .

Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Hein, S., Wang, K., Roberts, A., Cui, J., Smith, M., Bullock Mann, F., Barmer, A., & Dilig, R. (2020). The condition of education 2020 (NCES 2020-144). U.S. Department of Education . National Center for Education Statistics Retrieved March 1, 2020, from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2020144 .

Hutchinson, J. M., Whiteley, H. E., Smith, C. D., & Connors, L. (2004). The early identification of dyslexia: children with English as an additional language. Dyslexia, 10 (3), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.275 .

Institute of Education Sciences. (2020). What Works Clearinghouse standards handbook version 4.1. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/WWC-Standards-Handbook-v4-1-508.pdf

Irby, B. J., Lara-Alecio, R., Quiros, A. M., Mathes, P., & Rodriguez, L. (2004). English Language and Literacy Acquisition evaluation research program (Project ELLA): Second annual evaluation report. U.S. Department of Education, Institute for Educational Sciences.

Irby, B. J., Tong, F., Lara-Alecio, R., Mathes, P. G., Acosta, S., & Guerrero, C. (2010). Quality of instruction, language of instruction, and Spanish-speaking English language learners’ performance on a state reading achievement test. Texas Association for Bilingual Education, 12 , 1–42.

Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2012). Development of morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge in Spanish-speaking language minority learners: a parallel process latent growth curve model. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 33 (1), 23–54. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000099 .

Lakeshore Learning Materials. (1997). Question of the day. Author.

Leafstedt, J. M., Richards, C. R., & Gerber, M. M. (2004). Effectiveness of explicit phonological-awareness instruction for at-risk English learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19 (4), 252–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2004.00110.x .

Lemons, C. J., Fuchs, D., Gilbert, J. K., & Fuchs, L. S. (2014). Evidence-based practices in a changing world: reconsidering the counterfactual in education research. Educational Researcher, 43 (5), 242–252. https://doi.org/10.3102/2F0013189X14539189 .

Lesaux, N. K., Rupp, A. A., & Siegel, L. S. (2007). Growth in reading skills of children from diverse linguistic backgrounds: findings from a 5-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (4), 821–834.

Liberatti, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 6 (10), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006 .

Lipka, O., & Siegel, L. S. (2012). The development of reading comprehension skills in children learning English as a second language. Reading and Writing, 25 (8), 1873–1898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9309-8 .

Lovett, M. W., Frijters, J. C., Wolf, M., Steinbach, K. A., Sevcik, R. A., & Morris, R. D. (2017). Early intervention for children at risk for reading disabilities: the impact of grade at intervention and individual differences on intervention outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109 (7), 889–914. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000181 .

Ludwig, C., Guo, K., & Georgiou, G. K. (2019). Are reading interventions for English language learners effective? A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52 (3), 220–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219419825855 .

Mathes, P. G., & Torgesen, J. K. (2005 ). Early interventions in reading , level 1 . SRA/McGraw-Hill.

*McMaster, K. L., Kung, H., Han, I., & Cao, M. (2008). Peer-assisted learning strategies: a “tier 1” approach to promoting English learners’ response to intervention. Exceptional Children , 74 , 194-214. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400204 , 2

McNamara, J. K., Scissons, M., & Gutknecth, N. (2011). A longitudinal study of kindergarten children at risk for reading disabilities: the poor really are getting poorer. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44 (5), 421–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411410040 .

Montgomery, J. (2007). Bridge of vocabulary. Pearson.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of National Reading Panel: teaching children to read . National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Nelson, J. R., & Vadasy, P. F. (2007). Early vocabulary connections: first words to know and decode. Sopris West.

*Nelson, J. R., Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2011). Efficacy of a tier 2 supplemental root word vocabulary and decoding intervention with kindergarten Spanish-speaking English learners. Journal of Literacy Research , 43 , 184-211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X11403088 , 2

O’Connor, R. E., Bocian, K. M., Beach, K. D., Sanchez, V., & Flynn, L. J. (2013). Special education in a 4-year Response to Intervention (RtI) environment: characteristics of students with learning disability and grade of identification. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28 (3), 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12013 .

Phillips, B. (2014). Promotion of syntactical development and oral comprehension: development and initial evaluation of a small-group intervention. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 30 (1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659013487742 .

Proctor, C. P., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in English: toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (2), 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.246 .

R Core Team (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/

Richards-Tutor, C., Baker, D. L., Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., & Smith, J. M. (2016). The effectiveness of reading interventions for English learners: a research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 82 , 144–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915585483 .

Risher, Tipton and Zhipeng (2017). robumeta: robust variance meta regression. R package version 2.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=robumeta

Samson, J. F., & Lesaux, N. K. (2009). Language-minority learners in special education: rates and predictors of identification for services. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42 (2), 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219408326221 .

Scammacca, N. K., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., & Stuebing, K. K. (2015). A meta-analysis of interventions for struggling readers in grades 4–12: 1980–2011. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48 (4), 369–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413504995 .

Scammacca, N. K., Roberts, G. J., Cho, E., Williams, K. J., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S. R., & Carroll, M. (2016). A century of progress: reading interventions for students in grades 4–12, 1914–2014. Review of Educational Research, 86 (3), 756–800. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316652942 .

Slavin, R. E. (1986). Best-evidence synthesis: an alternative to meta- analytic and traditional reviews. Educational Researcher, 19 , 141–162 jstor.org/stable/42900104 .

Slavin, R. E., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective programs in elementary mathematics: a best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 78 (3), 427–515. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308317473 .

Slavin, R. E., & Smith, D. (2009). The relationship between sample sizes and effect sizes in systematic review in education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31 (4), 500–506. https://doi.org/10.3102/2F0162373709352369 .

Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: a best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43 (3), 290–322. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.43.3.4 .

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Chambers, B., & Haxby, B. (2009). 2 million children: Success for All (2nd ed.). Corwin Press.

Sullivan, A. L. (2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and placement of English language learners. Exceptional Children, 77 (3), 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F001440291107700304 .

Tipton, E. (2015). Small sample adjustments for robust variance estimation with meta-regression. Psychological Methods, 20 (3), 375–393. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000011 .

Tong, F., Irby, B. J., Lara-Alecio, R., & Mathes, P. G. (2008a). English and Spanish acquisition by Hispanic second graders in developmental bilingual programs: a 3-year longitudinal randomized study. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 30 (4), 500–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986308324980 .

Tong, F., Lara-Alecio, R., Irby, B., Mathes, P., & Kwok, O. (2008b). Accelerating early academic oral English development in transitional bilingual and structured English immersion programs. American Educational Research Journal, 45 (4), 1011–1044. https://doi.org/10.3102/2F0002831208320790 .

Tong, X., Deacon, S. H., & Cain, K. (2014). Morphological and syntactic awareness in poor comprehenders: another piece of the puzzle. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47 (1), 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0022219413509971 .

Torgesen, J. K. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School Psychology, 40 (1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00092-9 .

*Vadasy, P. F. & Sanders, E. A. (2010). Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruction for low-skilled kindergarteners in the context of language minority status and classroom phonics instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology , 102 , 786-803. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019639 , 4

*Vadasy, P. F. & Sanders, E. A. (2011). Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruction for low-skilled first graders: how language minority status and pretest characteristics moderate treatment response. Scientific Studies of Reading , 15 , 471-497. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2010.501091 , 6

Vadasy, P., & Sanders, E. (2012). Two-year follow-up of a kindergarten phonics intervention for English learners and native English speakers: contextualizing treatment impacts by classroom literacy instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 (4), 987–1005. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028163 .

Vadasy, P., Sanders, E., & Peyton, J. (2006). Code-oriented instruction for kindergarten students at risk for reading difficulties: a randomized field trial with paraeducator implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (3), 508–528. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.508 .

Vadasy, P., Sanders, E., & Abbott, R. (2008). Effects of supplemental early reading intervention at 2-year follow up: reading skill growth patterns and predictors. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12 (1), 51–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701746906 .

*Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P. G., Carlson, C. D., Cardenas-Hagen, E., Pollard-Durodola, S. D., Fletcher, J. M., & Francis, D. J. (2006a). Effectiveness of a Spanish intervention and an English intervention for English-language learners at risk for reading problems. American Educational Research Journal , 43 , 449-487. https://doi.org/10.3102/2F00028312043003449 , 3

*Vaughn, S., Mathes, P., Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P., Carlson, C., Pollard-Durodola, S., Cardenas-Hagen, E., & Francis, D. (2006b). Effectiveness of an English intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading problems. The Elementary School Journal , 107 , 153-180. https://doi.org/10.1086/510653 , 2

Vaughn, S., Elbaum, B. E., Wanzek, J., Scammacca, N., & Walker, M. A. (2014). Code sheet and guide for education-related intervention study syntheses . The Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk.

Ventriglia, L., & González, L. (2000). Santillana Intensive English. Santillana USA.

Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36 (3), 1–48 http://www.jstatsoft.org/v36/i03/ .

Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N., Gatlin, B., Walker, M. A., & Capin, P. (2016). Meta-analyses of the effects of tier 2 type reading interventions in grades K-3. Educational Psychology Review, 28 (3), 551–576.

Wanzek, J., Stevens, E. A., Williams, K. J., Scammacca, N., Vaughn, S., & Sargent, K. (2018). Current evidence on the effects of intensive early reading interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51 (6), 612–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0022219418775110 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Teaching and Learning Sciences, Morgridge College of Education, The University of Denver, 1999 E. Evans Ave, Denver, CO, 80210, USA

Garrett J. Roberts, Brooke Coté & Jacklyn Van Ooyik

School of Education and Human Development, The University of Virginia, 417 Emmet Street South, P.O. Box 400273, Charlottesville, VA, 22904, USA

Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education, College of Education, Michigan State University, 620 Farm Lane, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

Department of Educational Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, 1912 Speedway STE 504, Austin, TX, 78712, USA

Department of Research Methods and Information Science, Morgridge College of Education, The University of Denver, 1999 E. Evans Ave, Denver, CO, 80210, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Garrett J. Roberts .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

(PDF 164 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Roberts, G.J., Hall, C., Cho, E. et al. The State of Current Reading Intervention Research for English Learners in Grades K–2: a Best-Evidence Synthesis. Educ Psychol Rev 34 , 335–361 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09629-2

Download citation

Accepted : 01 July 2021

Published : 10 July 2021

Issue Date : March 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09629-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Intervention
• Elementary school
• English language learner
• Best-evidence
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Reading Interventions With Behavioral and Social Skill Outcomes: A Synthesis of Research

Garrett j. roberts.

1 The University of Texas at Austin, USA

Michael Solis

2 University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA

Stephen Ciullo

3 Texas State University, San Marcos, USA

John W. McKenna

4 St. Johns University, Queens, NY, USA

Sharon Vaughn

Research findings have suggested that reading deficits and problem behaviors are positively related. This synthesis investigated how reading interventions impact behavioral/social skill outcomes by reviewing studies that included (a) a reading intervention without behavioral/social skill components, (b) behavioral/social skill dependent variables, and (c) students in Grades K-12. Fifteen articles were evaluated by the type of reading intervention, associations between positive reading effects and behavioral/social skill outcomes, and The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) determinants of study ratings. Findings suggested that reading interventions tended to have positive reading outcomes, while behavioral/social skill outcomes were small or negative. Research did not suggest an association between improved reading and behavioral performance, regardless of the WWC study determinants rating. Implications include reading instruction may not be sufficient to improve behavioral and social skill outcomes. Additional research is warranted to investigate the long-term impact of reading on behavioral and social skill outcomes.

Many students who display persistent problem behaviors also struggle academically ( Kauffman & Landrum, 2009 ). Academic and social behaviors (e.g., reading, math, social skills, problem behaviors) are related and reciprocal ( Malecki & Elliot, 2002 ), with a positive relationship between social behavior and reading ( J. W. Adams, Snowling, Hennessy, & Kind, 1999 ). A meta-analysis by Kavale and Forness (1996) reported that 75% of students with Learning Disabilities (LD) could be differentiated from nonlearning disabled peers by social competence measures alone.

Studies have also suggested that early behavior problems are predictive of later reading difficulties and early reading deficits can predict future behavior problems. This was demonstrated with higher levels of behavior problems in 6-year-olds predicting later reading deficits in 17-year-olds ( Breslau et al., 2009 ). In addition, two other studies demonstrated that first-grade reading difficulties predicted third-grade behavior problems ( Miles & Stipek, 2006 ; Morgan, Farkas, Tufis, & Sperling, 2008 ). Moreover, when behavior problems persist and students are unable to develop prosocial behavior by approximately third grade, children are likely to display antisocial behavior throughout their lives ( Bullis & Walker, 1994 ; Kazdin, 1987 ).

Problem behaviors are also negatively associated with the likelihood that a student will respond to intensive reading interventions ( Hagan-Burke et al., 2011 ). Measures of attention and problem behaviors have been found to be significantly and positively related to students’ nonresponsiveness to intensive reading interventions ( Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2002 ). Furthermore, in a study by Torgesen et al. (1999) , problem behavior was identified as one of the most reliable predictors of student outcomes (or lack of positive outcomes) in response to intervention. The authors noted that even in one-to-one teaching situations, problem behavior made it difficult for students to benefit from intervention.

Problem Behaviors and Reading Research

The relationship between problem behaviors and academic performance manifests in various forms including (a) externalizing behavior ( Nelson, Benner, Lane, & Smith, 2004 ), (b) internalizing behavior ( Harris, Oakes, Lane, & Rutherford, 2009 ), and (c) deficits in social skills ( Kavale & Forness, 1996 ; Malecki & Elliot, 2002 ). See Table 1 for operational definitions of these behaviors. Reading achievement tends to be defined in two stages referred to as (a) learning to read in Grades K-3 and (b) reading to learn or understand in Grades 4 to 12 ( Chall, 1996 ; Torgesen et al., 2007 ). Related literature on problem behaviors and reading interventions will be summarized according to these two categories.

Behavioral and Social Skills Definition.

One syntheses and one meta-analysis investigated preschool to third-grade students who failed to respond to reading interventions. In a synthesis by Al Otaiba and Fuchs (2002) , they investigated the characteristics of students who were unresponsive to early literacy intervention. Nine of 23 studies in this synthesis reported attention and behavior problems as a factor. Seven of these 9 studies reported a relationship between unresponsiveness to an early reading intervention and attention or behavior problems. In a similar meta-analysis, Nelson, Benner, and Gonzalez (2003) reported problem behavior as having the third largest magnitude in predicting treatment effectiveness (or nonresponsiveness) in literacy interventions with rapid naming and phonological awareness having larger magnitudes.

Grades 4 to 12

Students with reading difficulties in Grades 4 to 12 often demonstrate declining engagement and motivation to read, possibly affecting growth in adolescent reading proficiency in two ways ( Torgesen et al., 2007 ). First, students with lower motivation spend less time reading than students with higher motivation. Second, students who are less motivated to read are less engaged during reading, thus negatively influencing comprehension ( Torgesen et al., 2007 ). Furthermore, Torgesen and colleagues (2007) identified motivation and engagement as areas of skill and knowledge that need to continually improve in Grades 4 to 12, stating that “… motivation and engagement in reading and completing reading-based assignments must be part of any comprehensive plan for improving levels of academic literacy in adolescents” (p. 10).

In recent meta-analyses pertaining to 4th- to 12th-grade reading interventions ( Edmonds et al., 2009 ; Flynn, Zheng, & Swanson, 2012 ; Scammacca, Roberts, Vaughn, & Stuebing, 2013 ; Wanzek et al., 2013 ), there were not a sufficient number of studies included in any of these systematic reviews to examine the moderating effects of problem behavior. Edmonds et al. (2009) acknowledged this by suggesting that future research should investigate social, affective, engagement, and motivational variables to better understand their role in student reading comprehension outcomes.

Theoretical Explanations: Behavior and Reading

There are four hypothesized models ( Hinshaw, 1992 ; Spira & Fischel, 2005 ) that address the causality between problem behaviors and reading outcomes: (a) Reading difficulties lead to problem behaviors, as student’s behavior is escape maintained to avoid difficult tasks; (b) problem behaviors result in reading deficits, as students are not academically engaged and do not access the academic content; (c) a transactional relationships exists, where both problem behaviors and reading underachievement simultaneously influence each other; and (d) a “common cause” such as inattentiveness can lead to reading and behavior problems. This synthesis will further investigate the hypothesis that reading difficulties lead to problem behaviors by examining the evidence from reading intervention studies that include behavioral outcomes ( Hinshaw, 1992 ; Spira & Fischel, 2005 ). If the hypothesis is supported, improving a student’s reading, through a reading intervention, may lead to a decrease in problem behaviors, as behaviors are escape maintained by avoiding difficult tasks ( Morgan et al., 2008 ).

Reading Interventions and Problem Behaviors

Two syntheses investigated the impact of reading interventions on social outcomes ( Nelson, Lane, Benner, & Kim, 2011 ; Wanzek, Vaughn, Kim, & Cavanaugh, 2006 ). Wanzek et al. (2006) located 27 intervention studies that investigated students with learning or reading disabilities in Grades K-6 and reported the following conclusions: (a) The majority of the studies had small positive effects on social outcomes, (b) reading interventions and social outcomes were positively associated, and (c) further research was needed. Nelson and colleagues (2011) investigated the effects of reading instruction on the social adjustment for students who have or are at risk of having reading and/or behavior problems. The inclusion criteria for this synthesis required the studies to (a) be a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or quasi-experimental, (b) include enough quantitative information to have a calculable effect size, and (c) have dependent measures in literacy and social adjustment. With this inclusion criterion, they located four studies in Grades K-6, and found that reading interventions consistently improved reading skills ( g = 0. 49) but did not improve the social adjustment of students ( g = −0.14).

Rationale and Purpose

The rationale for this investigation is to expand findings from previous related syntheses ( Nelson et al., 2011 ; Wanzek et al., 2006 ) based on research suggesting that there is a (a) high co-occurrence rate of behavior problems and reading problems; (b) need to improve reading outcomes, especially for students who fail to respond to adequate and intensive interventions; and (c) need to further investigate the theoretical explanations that posit the idea that reading difficulties lead to problem behaviors by exploring the relationship between reading and behavioral outcomes in the context of reading interventions aimed to improve reading skills.

While this synthesis shares common features with Wanzek et al. (2006) and Nelson et al. (2011) , our purpose differs from Wanzek et al. (2006) in that we expand their inclusion criteria to include all students in Grades K-12 and isolate the reading component by including only reading interventions without behavioral or social skill independent variables (e.g., token economy). In addition, we present a more comprehensive review than Nelson et al. (2011) by expanding the inclusion criteria in the following areas: (a) participant selection; (b) type of reading instruction provided is not restricted to phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary; (c) research design (i.e., single-case research designs); (d) broadening the dependent measure requirement; and (e) not requiring a calculable effect size.

This synthesis will evaluate reading interventions with behavioral/social skill outcomes to answer the following research questions:

Research Question 1: What are the effects of reading interventions on behavioral/social skill outcomes for students in Grades K-12 and do these effects differ when disaggregated by the quality of the study as determined by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) determinants of study rating ( Institute of Education Sciences [IES], 2014 )?

Research Question 2: How are positive reading effects from reading interventions related to behavioral/social skill outcomes for students in Grades K-12?

Criteria for Inclusion

Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (a) included reading intervention as an independent variable, (b) did not include a behavioral or social skill component (e.g., token economy, social skills training) as an independent variable, (c) included a behavioral or social skills outcome (see Table 1 ), (d) included students in Grades K-12, (e) occurred during regular school hours in the United States, (f) published in English, (g) published in a peer-reviewed journal from 1975 to 2013, and (h) was a group design (single-group designs were excluded) or single-case design.

Literature Search Procedures

First, computer-assisted searches for relevant literature were conducted for articles published between January 1975 and September 2013, using Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), Education Full Text, PsycINFO, and Academic Search Complete with the following search terms: reading, behavior, English language learner, culturally and linguistically diverse, peer mediated, peer tutoring , and social adjustment in various combinations. This search resulted in 2,783 articles that were reviewed. Second, a hand search was conducted from 2011 to 2013 of the following journals that published the articles that met the criteria in the first step: Annals of Dyslexia, Behavior Disorders, Education and Treatment of Children, Exceptional Children, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, Journal of Learning Disabilities, Learning Disability Quarterly, Preventing School Failure, Psychological Reports, Psychology in the Schools , and Remedial and Special Education . Third, reference sections of 11 relevant literature reviews were searched ( Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2002 ; Bruhn, Lane, & Hirsch, 2014 ; Cook et al., 2008 ; Joseph & Eveleigh, 2011 ; Mooney, Ryan, Uhing, Reid, & Epstein, 2005 ; Ryan, Reid, & Epstein, 2004 ; Simonsen, Fairbanks, Briesch, Myers, & Sugai, 2008 ; Spencer, 2006 ; Vannest, Temple-Harvey, & Mason, 2009 ; Wanzek et al., 2006 ; Wanzek, Wexler, Vaughn, & Ciullo, 2010 ). Finally, the reference sections of all the studies meeting the inclusion criteria were examined. Following the initial computer search, no additional studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. The search procedures resulted in 15 studies from 1981 to 2009.

Coding Procedures

A code sheet was developed based on previous intervention synthesis and included (a) participant information, (b) design, (c) treatment and design group characteristics, (d) clarity of causal inference, (e) precision of outcome, and (f) effect size measurements/descriptive findings when applicable ( Edmonds et al., 2009 ). All articles were double coded after interrater agreement was established at or above 90% for all coders on two articles (i.e., single-case design and group design). Interrater agreement was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the sum of the number of agreements and disagreements. In addition, all tables were double coded for accuracy using the criteria described in the following section.

Data Analysis

The effect sizes for the group design studies were compared descriptively due to the low number of studies with calculable effect sizes ( n = 3; Lane et al., 2007 ; Nelson, Stage, Epstein, & Pierce, 2005 ; O’Shaughnessy & Swanson, 2000 ). For studies where effect sizes could be recalculated, Hedges’s g ( Cooper & Hedges, 1994 ) was used to recalculate the effect sizes by taking the posttest divided by the pooled standard deviation.

Data analysis was descriptively provided for the single-case design studies using the visual analysis procedures recommended by Horner, Swaminathan, Sugai, and Smolkowski (2012) . Visual analysis was selected for data analysis as effect size estimations for single-case designs currently have no widely agreed upon method ( Horner et al., 2012 ) and many researchers prefer visual analysis for basing their inferences ( Kratochwill et al., 2010 ). Using Horner and colleagues (2012) proposed procedures for visual analysis, we investigated five variables including level, slope variability, immediacy of effect, and/or degree of overlap.

For all single-case designs (e.g., alternating treatment, multiple baseline), three variables that evaluated outcomes within and across adjacent phases were used including (a) level (i.e., measuring central tendency within phases), (b) trend or slope of data points, and (c) variability or deviation in scores from the trend line. For designs that included a baseline phase (e.g., withdrawal, multiple baseline) changes between two adjacent phases were evaluated by (a) immediacy of effect (i.e., how quickly data patterns change following a manipulation of the independent variable) and (b) degree of overlap, which is calculated by determining the percentage of intervention data points not having a larger positive outcome than the baseline data point with the largest positive outcome (i.e., proportion of data points in Phase 2 that overlap with Phase 1; lower number indicates greater effect). This synthesis evaluated these variables with the results available in Table 4 .

Visual Analysis of Single-Case Design Studies.

Note. DV = Dependent Variable; mixed results varied by student; NWF = nonsense word fluency; ORF = oral reading fluency.

Study Design Evaluations

To assess the quality of each study, The WWC procedure and standards handbook, version 3.0 ( IES, 2014 ) determinants of study ratings was used. The WWC uses a multistep evaluation process to classify studies into (a) meets WWC standards without reservations, (b) meets WWC standards with reservations, and (c) does not meet WWC standards. The criteria set forth by the WWC vary by study design (i.e., group design, single-case design) and are described in this synthesis.

Group design evaluations

The determinants of study ratings for group designs include (a) study design (i.e., RCT or quasi-experimental), (b) sample attrition with liberal boundary (i.e., low, high), and (c) baseline equivalence (reported differences greater than 0.25 pooled standard deviations on any baseline characteristic do not meet baseline equivalence criteria).

The WWC flowchart of the multistep evaluation process ( IES, 2014 ), only allows an RCT design without differential attrition to receive the highest study determinant, which is meets WWC standards without reservations. Group studies receive the study determinant rating of meets WWC standards with reservations if they were either an RCT with high differential attrition and had a baseline equivalence or a quasi-experimental study with a baseline equivalence. RCTs that had a high differential attrition and no baseline equivalence or quasi-experimental studies that had no baseline equivalence were classified as does not meet WWC standards.

Single-case design evaluations

Based on the WWC ( IES, 2014 ) study rating determinants, for a single-case design study to meet the criteria for meets WWC standards without reservations, (a) they must have a systematically manipulated independent variable, (b) interassessor agreement must be systematically measured in at least 20% of data points in each condition (if percentage of data points is not reported per condition, studies still meet requirement, but this absence of information must be documented), (c) a minimum interassessor agreement threshold must be met (percentage agreement is .80–.90, Cohen’s kappa is ≥ .60), and (d) attempts to demonstrate the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable over time and with data points in each phase. The final step in determining the study rating varied by design (e.g., alternating treatment, multiple baseline) and included the evaluation of the total number of phases/conditions and total number of data points per phase/condition.

This synthesis reports the results of 15 reading intervention studies and their reading and behavioral/social skill outcomes. First, a summary of studies is provided, followed by interventions disaggregated and evaluated by the type of intervention that was conducted (e.g., phonics, multicomponent with comprehension). Next, studies that report both reading and behavior/social skill outcomes are investigated to report on the associations between reading and behavioral/social skill outcomes. This is followed by reporting on the visual analysis evaluation based on the proposed criteria of Horner and colleagues (2012) for the eight single-case design studies. We conclude with evaluating each study to determine if it meets the WWC standards without reservations, with reservations, or does not meet WWC standards.

Summary of Studies

Research designs and outcome measures of the 15 studies meeting the inclusion criteria included (a) 4 RCT studies, with 3 reporting both behavior and reading outcomes ( Gest & Gest, 2005 ; Lane, Fletcher, Carter, Dejud, & DeLorenzo, 2007 ; Nelson et al., 2005 ) and 1 reporting behavior outcomes with no reading outcomes ( Strayhorn & Bickel, 2002 ); (b) 2 quasi-experimental studies, with 1 reporting both behavior and reading outcomes ( Scruggs & Osguthorpe, 1986 ) and 1 reporting behavior outcomes with no reading outcomes ( Feldman, 1981 ); (c) 8 single-case studies, with 6 reporting both behavior and reading outcomes ( Kamps, Barbetta, Leonard, & Delquadri, 1994 ; Lane, Little, Redding-Rhodes, Phillips, & Welsh, 2007 ; Lane et al., 2002 ; Lingo, Slaton, & Jolivette, 2006 ; Scott & Shearer-Lingo, 2002 ; Wehby, Falk, Barton-Arwood, Lane, & Cooley, 2003 ) and 2 reporting behavior outcomes with no reading outcomes ( Beck, Burns, & Lau, 2009 ; Burke, Hagan-Burke, & Sugai, 2003 ); and (d) 1 study that used an RCT and single-case design (for oral reading fluency [ORF]) that included both reading and behavior measures ( O’Shaughnessy & Swanson, 2000 ). The total number of students was 304 with 68% males and 32% females (2 studies did not report gender). Thirteen studies included students ( n = 294) in Grades K-5, and 2 studies included students ( n = 10) in Grades 6 to 7.

A total of 14 studies included students who were either at risk of or had been identified as having a reading disability and 13 studies included students who were either at risk or had been identified as having either a behavioral, attention, or social skills deficit. Of the 12 studies that included the number of treatment sessions, the range was 2 to 137. The primary implementers of treatments were teachers ( n = 6), researchers ( n = 5), and paraprofessionals ( n = 3). One study did not report who implemented the treatment. The reading interventions included 9 studies with a commercially available curriculum (e.g., Corrective Reading; Engelmann et al., 1999 ), and 6 studies used researcher-developed curricula. Fidelity was reported on treatments in 9 studies.

Effect of Reading Intervention on Behavior and Social Skill Outcomes

Out of the 15 studies meeting the inclusion criteria, 3 studies included a phonics intervention, 6 studies included a phonemic awareness (PA) and phonics intervention, 1 study included a phonics and fluency intervention, 3 studies included a multicomponent with comprehension intervention, and 2 studies implemented interventions categorized as “other” (i.e., based on Functional Behavior Assessment [FBA], Sentence Approach; Jansky, 1981 ). For an overview of the studies see Table 2 (group design) and Table 3 (single-case design).

Overview of Group Design Studies.

Note. RCT = Randomized Controlled Trial; NR = Not Reported; PA = Phonological Awareness; LC = Listening Comprehension; NSI = Negative Social Interaction; TOPA = Test of Phonological Awareness ( Torgesen & Bryant, 1994b ); NWF = nonsense word fluency; NS = nonsignificant group differences at posttest; BERS = The Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale ( Epstein & Sharma, 1998 ); CTOPP-PA = Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing Phonological Awareness Composite ( Wagner et al., 1999 ); WRMT-R = Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised ( Woodcock, 1998a ); WI = Word Identification; WA = Word Attack; PC = Passage Comprehension; LNF = Letter Naming Fluency; CTOPP-RN = Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing Rapid Naming Composite; RC = Reading Comprehension; ODD = Oppositional Defiance Disorder; ADHD = Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder; Exp. = Experimental; LD = Learning Disabilities; EBD = Emotional Behavior Disorder; WR = Word Reading; ORF = oral reading fluency; SSRS = Social Skills Rating System ( Gresham & Elliot, 1990 ); PAT = Phonological Awareness Training (i.e., T1); WAT = Word Analogy Training Group (i.e., T2); PIAT-R = Peabody Individual Achievement Test–Revised ( Markwardt, 1989 ); TDB = total disruptive behavior; WJ = Woodcock-Johnson; SCD = single-case design.

Overview Single-Case Design Studies.

Note. AT = Alternating Treatment; EBD = Emotional Behavior Disorder; LD = Learning Disabilities; FBA = functional behavior assessment; MBL = Multiple Baseline; ABAB = Reversal/Withdrawal; RC = Reading Comprehension; NR = Not Reported; ORF = oral reading fluency; NWF = nonsense word fluency; TDB = total disruptive behavior; NSI = Negative Social Interaction; OHI = Other Health Impairment; NU = Normative Update; WRMT-R = Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised ( Woodcock, 1998a ); ID = Intellectual Disability; SLI = Speech Language Impairment; WI = Word Identification; WA = Word Attack; CTOPP = Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing; PA = Phonological Awareness; PM = Phonological Memory.

All three phonics-based interventions utilized a single-case design. In two studies, Beck et al. (2009) pretaught letter-sounds and words to students with Emotional Behavior Disorder (EBD) or who were at risk of behavior difficulty and Lane, Little, et al. (2007) implemented Peer Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS; Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Simmons, 1997 ), focusing on segmenting and blending words, decoding words, story reading, and partner reading with students at risk of reading and behavior difficulty. One study implemented a phonics and writing intervention ( Lane et al., 2002 ), where phonics chapter books were used to teach PA, connect sound symbols, high frequency words, chapter reading, dictation, and writing. Two of these studies reported reading and behavioral outcomes ( Lane, Little, et al., 2007 ; Lane et al., 2002 ) and one study only reported behavioral outcomes ( Beck et al., 2009 ).

Across these three studies, two found student performance improved for all students in (a) on-task behavior ( Beck et al., 2009 ) and (b) total disruptive behavior (TDB; Lane et al., 2002 ), while in the third study ( Lane, Little, et al., 2007 ) student performance in academic engaged time (AET) had high variability, no clear trends across phases, and a total of 88% of the data points overlapping (i.e., 88% of the AET data points during the intervention were lower than the highest AET data point during baseline). For studies that included reading outcomes ( Lane, Little, et al., 2007 ; Lane et al., 2002 ), the reading outcomes (i.e., ORF, nonsense word fluency [NWF]) tended to have higher levels and improved trends during the reading intervention phase as compared with the baseline phase.

Six multicomponent studies targeted PA. Four of these studies were group designs ( Lane, Fletcher, et al., 2007 ; Nelson et al., 2005 ; O’Shaughnessy & Swanson, 2000 ; Scruggs & Osguthorpe, 1986 ) and two studies were single-case design ( Lingo et al., 2006 ; Wehby et al., 2003 ). In the four studies that implemented a group design, two studies used PA and phonics; one study used PA, phonics, and working memory; and one study used PA and spelling. One of the two studies that used a PA and phonics intervention, was a two-treatment and comparison group design with one treatment condition (Phonological Awareness Training Group [PAT]) focused on instruction sound blending, sound segmenting, and letter-sound correspondences, and the second treatment condition (Word Analogy Training Group [WAT]) focused on instruction in rhyming, decoding strategies, whole words, written language, and high frequency spelling ( O’Shaughnessy & Swanson, 2000 ). The other study ( Scruggs & Osguthorpe, 1986 ) used peer tutoring and the curriculum Beginning Reading I and II ( Harrison, 1982 ). This study only included students who had met a criterion for a LD and a behavior disorder.

In the PA, phonics, and working memory study, the curriculum Stepping Stones to Literacy ( Nelson, Cooper, & Gonzalez, 2004 ) was used to deliver a scripted program including PA, phonics, and serial processing to kindergarten students who were at risk of reading and behavior difficulties ( Nelson et al., 2005 ). Finally, in an intervention study that was to be delivered to first-grade students who were at risk of reading and behavior difficulties, students received Phonological Awareness Training for Reading (PATR; Torgesen & Bryant, 1994a ) to teach rhyming, blending, segmenting, and spelling ( Lane, Fletcher, et al., 2007 ).

Out of the four studies using a group design, there were no behavioral measures with significant posttest group differences. Three of these studies reported enough information to recalculate an effect size ( Lane, Fletcher, et al., 2007 ; Nelson et al., 2005 ; O’Shaughnessy & Swanson, 2000 ) and the other study ( Scruggs & Osguthorpe, 1986 ) did not report enough information to recalculate an effect size (see Table 2 ). In the three studies that reported effect sizes for nonstatistically significant results, the range was g = 0.39 (positive effect associated with negative outcomes, negative social interaction; Lane, Fletcher, et al., 2007 ) to g = 0.63 (intrapersonal skills; Nelson et al., 2005 ).

For the reading measures, three of the studies found at least one significant interaction effect between time and treatment ( Lane, Fletcher, et al., 2007 ; Nelson et al., 2005 ; O’Shaughnessy & Swanson, 2000 ) favoring the treatment condition, while one study did not find any significant differences between groups. On measures where groups significantly differed at posttest, effect sizes ranged from g = 0.40 on the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised, Word Attack ( R. Woodcock, 1987 ) to g = 2.07 on a trained content measure of phonemic deletion ( Stanovich, Cunningham, & Cramer, 1984 ) both of which were in the O’Shaughnessy and Swanson (2000) study (see Table 2 ).

Two PA, phonics, and word-reading studies were implemented using single-case designs ( Lingo et al., 2006 ; Wehby et al., 2003 ). In the Lingo et al. (2006) study, Corrective Reading ( Engelmann et al., 1999 ) was delivered to seven students in the sixth to seventh grade who all had reading and behavior objectives on their Individualized Education Plan (IEP). In the Wehby et al. (2003) study, they used Open Court ( M. J. Adams et al., 2000 ) and PALS ( Fuchs et al., 1997 ) with eight students in the second to fourth grade in a self-contained classroom for students with EBD.

For behavioral measures, in Lingo et al. (2006) the overlapping data points for appropriate and inappropriate behaviors were not calculated due to some participants having only one data point during baseline, while Wehby et al. (2003) had a pooled overlap of data points across students and behavioral measures (i.e., time attending, total inappropriate behavior) of 186/192 (97%). For Wehby et al. (2003) , the overlapping data point percentage suggests that 3% of the data points during treatment outperformed the data point with the greatest positive effect during baseline. These results also varied at the student level when comparing the intervention and baseline conditions on level, trend, and variability. For reading outcomes, Lingo et al. (2006) found (a) all students had an increase in level and trend on instructional- and grade-level text ORF measures; (b) overlapping data points, pooled across students, on grade-level ORF measures were 4/34 (12%) and instructional-level ORF measures were 27/88 (31%); and (c) six out of seven students had pretest to posttest gains on the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test, Normative Update (WRMT-R NU; R. W. Woodcock, 1998b ). The Wehby and colleagues (2003) study had a pooled overlap of data points across students of (a) 29/59 (49%) on NWF, (b) 19/52 (37%) on blending sounds, (c) 45/59 (83%) on sound naming, and (d) 21/59 (36%) on sight words. In addition, results from all the reading measures varied at the student level when comparing the intervention and baseline conditions on level, trend, and variability, with the exception that sound blending had a higher level for all students during the intervention condition.

Phonics and fluency

One study implemented a phonics and fluency intervention ( Scott & Shearer-Lingo, 2002 ) with two phonics-based treatment conditions: (a) Teach Your Child To Read in 100 Easy Lessons ( Engelmann, Haddox, & Bruner, 1986 ), which included 10- to 15-min lessons focusing on letter-sound correspondences, and (b) Great Leaps ( Campbell & Mercer, 1994 ), which included 10-min lessons on sounds, phrases, and a story. The second treatment placed a larger emphasis on fluency. Visual analysis was limited due to the frequency of data points for on-task behavior (pooled across three students there was a total of six data points during baseline, four data points during Intervention 1, and seven data points during Treatment 2) and ORF measures (pooled across three students there was a total of 10 data points during baseline, seven data points during Intervention 1, and 39 data points during Treatment 2). With four data points for on-task behavior and seven data points for ORF across three students, analysis of the effectiveness of the first treatment is unavailable. The second treatment condition showed a positive trend in on-task behavior for all three students and ORF had in increase in level and trend with a pooled overlap of data points across students of 1/39 (3%).

Multicomponent with comprehension

Three studies implemented a multicomponent with comprehension intervention. In a group design intervention that included PA, phonics, and listening comprehension, three 30-min sessions per week focused on beginning and ending sounds, knowledge of letter-sound correspondences, phonics, word studies, and deriving meaning from text ( Gest & Gest, 2005 ). Results were reported descriptively, with the majority of the students in the treatment group showing greater gains from the first week to the last week on behavioral (i.e., on-task behavior) and reading (i.e., letter identification, letter-sound knowledge, word identification, ORF) measures compared with the control condition. No comprehension measures were administered.

In a two-treatment group design study with no comparison condition ( Strayhorn & Bickel, 2002 ), a PA, phonics/word reading, and comprehension intervention was implemented. The amount of time students received the intervention varied in each of the two treatment conditions (102 hr of intervention vs. 19 hr of intervention). The behavior measure for this study included the Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Symptom Checklist 4 ( Gadow & Sprafkin, 1997 ), which had items for ADHD and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD). This study did not find a significant difference between conditions and no reading measures were reported.

The final multicomponent with reading comprehension intervention study ( Kamps et al., 1994 ) implemented a single-case design study for students with autism. This study had 25- to 30-min lessons using a classwide peer-tutoring model with the following components: (a) students read a passage, (b) feedback from peers included comprehension questions, (c) error correction, and (d) scores were read to the teacher and scores are posted in the classroom ( Kamps et al., 1994 ). The authors reported that all students improved in the duration and mean length of time of their social interactions. Two out of three students improved on ORF and comprehension measures, and one out of three students improved on the number of errors while reading a passage. For the measures where visual analysis was available, social interaction levels were higher during the intervention condition than the baseline condition and the pooled overlap of data points across students was 35/86 (41%), while reading comprehension had a higher level during treatment than baseline, there was an immediacy of effect, and the pooled overlap of data points across students was 51/81 (63%).

Other interventions

Two studies were categorized as “other” due to unique qualities of each of these reading interventions. The first study ( Burke et al., 2003 ) used a single-case design and a FBA to investigate the hypothesis that a single student’s problem behavior was maintained through escaping a difficult task. Based on the FBA, the student was pretaught the vocabulary words prior to the beginning of the lesson. The results ranged from a 53% to a 61% increase in on-task behaviors. No reading measures were given.

The second study was quasi-experimental ( Feldman, 1981 ), using the “Sentence Approach,” which builds on a student’s understanding of language in larger units and the understanding of language in context ( Jansky, 1981 ). Significant group differences were found by the researcher on posttest measures of on-task behavior and students ignoring teacher prompts favoring the treatment condition. However, not enough information was provided to calculate an effect size or p value. No reading measures were administered.

Reading and Behavioral Outcome Associations

To evaluate the association between reading and behavioral outcomes, studies with both reading and behavioral outcomes were descriptively evaluated comparing outcomes both within and across studies. This synthesis included 11 studies with reading and behavioral outcomes, including five studies that were group design and six studies that were single-case design.

Group design

Five studies used a group design and reported reading and behavioral outcomes. Three of these studies ( Lane, Fletcher, et al., 2007 ; Nelson et al., 2005 ; O’Shaughnessy & Swanson, 2000 ) reported statistical group differences at posttest on reading measures with effect sizes ranging from g = 0.40 to g = 2.07. One additional study descriptively reported group differences at posttest ( Gest & Gest, 2005 ), and one quasi-experimental study reported nonsignificant group differences at posttest ( Scruggs & Osguthorpe, 1986 ). Of the studies that reported statistical group differences on reading measures at posttest, none of these studies found statistical group differences on behavioral measures at posttest (see Table 2 ).

In a reading intervention that reported outcomes descriptively, Gest and Gest (2005) focused on beginning and ending sounds, knowledge of letter-sound correspondences, phonics, word studies, and deriving meaning from text. They reported improved reading outcomes for the treatment condition at posttest. They also reported on-task performance by disaggregating data based on the students with the lowest and highest pretest reading scores (i.e., letter-sounds, word reading). The students with the lowest pretest reading scores all improved from the beginning to the end of the intervention in time on-task (total percentage of time on-task per student ranged from an improvement of 6% to 11%), while the comparison condition showed little to no change in their time on-task (total percentage of time on-task per student ranged from a decrease of 10% to an increase of 1%). For the students with the highest pretest reading scores, the authors reported (scores not provided), four of the six students in the treatment condition improved in on-task behavior, while three of the four students in the comparison condition decreased in their time on-task.

In a quasi-experimental study ( Scruggs & Osguthorpe, 1986 ) using a peer-tutoring intervention, researchers did not report statistically significant group differences at posttest on criterion tests of percentage of words read correctly or the Woodcock Johnson Psycho Educational Battery (word attack, sight word reading, reading comprehension; R. Woodcock, 1978 ). This intervention consisted of using modified versions of Beginning Reading I and II ( Harrison, 1982 ). There were also no statistically significant group differences on the behavior measures (Attitude Toward School; Marascuilo & Levin, 1968 ), yet they reported pretest to posttest statistically significant differences for the treatment condition.

Overall, interventions that utilized group designs provide evidence of improved reading outcomes for students receiving the aforementioned treatments. However, these results indicate that various dependent variables pertaining to engagement and behavior were not associated with statistically significant differences.

Reading and behavioral outcomes were reported in six studies. Furthermore, all six interventions included at least one reading outcome (e.g., fluency, reading errors, comprehension) where an increase in level was observed for all students ( Lane, Little, et al., 2007 ; Lingo et al., 2006 ; Scott & Shearer-Lingo, 2002 ; Wehby et al., 2003 ), with two of these studies showing positive gains in behavioral measures ( Kamps et al., 1994 ; Lane et al., 2002 ). In the Kamps et al. (1994) study, a classwide peer tutoring, multicomponent with reading comprehension intervention was implemented. Higher levels of reading comprehension (researcher-designed measure) and social interactions during the treatment condition as compared with baseline or withdrawal phases were reported. The pooled overlapping data points across students for the (a) comprehension measure was 51/81 (63%) and (b) social interaction measure was 35/86 (41%). In the other study with positive gains in reading and behavioral measures, Lane et al. (2002) found lower levels of TDB and higher levels on Dyanmic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) ( Kaminski & Good, 1996 ) NWF when comparing baseline and intervention. Pooled overlapping data points across students were as follows: (a) TDB was 4/18 (22%) and (b) DIBELS NWF was 1/18 (6%). The other four studies ( Lane, Little, et al., 2007 ; Lingo et al., 2006 ; Scott & Shearer-Lingo, 2002 ; Wehby et al., 2003 ) observed behavioral outcomes that included no clear differences in conditions on level, trend, variability, and immediacy of effect, while also having high levels of overlapping data points (ranging from 90% to 97% pooled across students per measure) in AET ( Lane, Little, et al., 2007 ) and time attending and total inappropriate behavior ( Wehby et al., 2003 ). In addition, two studies had a lack of sufficient data points (<1 data point in any condition) to visually analyze behavioral measures ( Lingo et al., 2006 ; Scott & Shearer-Lingo, 2002 ).

Visual Analysis of Single-Case Design

Visual analysis, based on the proposed criteria by Horner and colleagues (2012) , was used to evaluate the eight single-case design studies and 19 outcome measures on level, trend, variability, immediacy of effect, and overlap. The 19 outcome measures included eight behavioral measures from six studies ( Beck et al., 2009 ; Burke et al., 2003 ; Kamps et al., 1994 ; Lane, Little, et al., 2007 ; Lane et al., 2002 ; Wehby et al., 2003 ) and 11 reading measures from six studies ( Kamps et al., 1994 ; Lane, Little, et al., 2007 ; Lane et al., 2002 ; Lingo et al., 2006 ; Scott & Shearer-Lingo, 2002 ; Wehby et al., 2003 ). Outcomes from four studies ( Kamps et al., 1994 ; Lane et al., 2002 ; Lingo et al., 2006 ; Scott & Shearer-Lingo, 2002 ) were excluded from visual analysis based on (a) data not reported visually and/or (b) not enough data points available for analysis (i.e., < 2 points in a condition; see Table 4 ).

Visual analysis of level on the behavioral measures included (a) four measures with positive findings in the intervention phase ( Beck et al., 2009 ; Burke et al., 2003 ; Kamps et al., 1994 ; Lane et al., 2002 ), (b) three measures with results that varied across students ( Lane, Little, et al., 2007 ; Wehby et al., 2003 ), and (c) no measures that favored the baseline phase. Visual analysis of level on the reading measures included (a) six measures with positive findings in the intervention phase ( Kamps et al., 1994 ; Lane, Little, et al., 2007 ; Lane et al., 2002 ; Lingo et al., 2006 ; Scott & Shearer-Lingo, 2002 ; Wehby et al., 2003 ), (b) four measures with results that varied across students ( Lane, Little, et al., 2007 ; Wehby et al., 2003 ), (c) one measure with no change across phases ( Lingo et al., 2006 ), and (d) no measures that favored the baseline phase.

No change in trend between phases or conditions was observed across all students on a single measure in any study reviewed. Variability that favored the intervention phase for all students on behavioral measures (i.e., task engagement, TDB) was observed in two interventions ( Burke et al., 2003 ; Lane et al., 2002 ). Visual analysis of variability in data points across all the other studies, phases, and conditions were either equal or varied at the student level. Immediacy of effect analysis was available on 16 measures. These data suggest an immediacy of effect was present across all students in one reading measure (i.e., reading comprehension; Kamps et al., 1994 ) and no behavioral measures.

In determining the overlap of data points between baseline and treatment, 16 outcomes measures were available for analysis. The pooled overlap was 516/929 (56%) for 5 behavior and 11 reading measures, suggesting that across all measures of reading and behavior 56% of the data points during the intervention phase had a greater positive outcome than the greatest positive outcome during the baseline phase.

The pooled overlap of data points (low overlap suggesting larger effect size) for behavioral measures was 271/341 (79%). The behavioral measures included (a) time attending/AET with a pooled overlap of data points equaling 136/145 (96%), (b) disruptive or inappropriate behaviors with a pooled overlap of data points equaling 100/116 (86%), and (c) duration of social interaction with a pooled overlap of data points at 35/86 (41%).

For the reading measures, the pooled overlap of data points was 245/588 (42%). Only one reading measure investigated reading comprehension with a pooled overlap of data points equaling 51/81 (63%) and one measure investigated sight word reading with a pooled overlap of data points at 45/59 (76%). The remaining reading measures investigated ORF, NWF, or sound naming, which had a pooled overlap of data points at 149/448 (33%).

Overall, findings across these single-case studies included outcomes that varied across level, trend, variability, and immediacy of effect. However, for overlapping data points, reading effects were larger than behavioral measures. The pooled overlap of data points for reading measures was 42% as compared with 79% for behavior measures. In addition, the behavioral data points accounted for 53% of the total overlapping data points, yet only 37% of the total data points, while the reading data points accounted for 47% of the overlapping data points and 63% of the total data points.

Evaluation of Research Designs

The WWC determinants of study ratings were used to categorize studies as (a) meets WWC standards without reservations, (b) meets WWC standards with reservations, and (c) does not meet WWC standards. Of the seven group design studies, four studies were classified as meets WWC standards without reservations ( Lane, Fletcher, et al., 2007 ; Nelson et al., 2005 ; O’Shaughnessy & Swanson, 2000 ; Strayhorn & Bickel, 2002 ), and three studies were classified as does not meet WWC standards ( Feldman, 1981 ; Gest & Gest, 2005 ; Scruggs & Osguthorpe, 1986 ; see Table 5 ). For the single-case design studies, two studies met the criteria for meets WWC standards without reservations ( Kamps et al., 1994 ; Lane, Little, et al., 2007 ), three studies did not meet WWC standards ( Beck et al., 2009 ; Burke et al., 2003 ; Scott & Shearer-Lingo, 2002 ), one study did not include enough information for evaluation ( Lane et al., 2002 ; see Table 6 ), and two studies’ classification varied depending on which measure was evaluated ( Lingo et al., 2006 ; Wehby et al., 2003 ).

Study Determinants and Ratings (Group Design).

Note. RCT = Randomized Controlled Trial; DNMS = Does not meet WWC Standards; MS = Meets WWC Standards; MSWR = Meets WWC Standards With Reservations; WWC = What Works Clearinghouse.

Study Determinants and Ratings (Single-Case Design).

Note. DNMS = Does not meet WWC Standards; MS = Meets WWC Standards; MSWR = Meets WWC Standards With Reservations; NWF = nonsense word fluency; ID = Intellectual Disability. WWC = What Works Clearinghouse.

In summary, while reading interventions tended to improve outcomes for participants on reading measures, they were not associated with improvements in behavioral measures. This lack of association between improvements in reading measures and behavioral measures does not change even if study findings are disaggregated based on studies that met the WWC with or without reservations and studies that did not meet the WWC standards.

We reviewed the extant research on the effects of reading interventions on reading, behavioral, and social skill outcomes. Specifically, we isolated the independent variable to reading-only interventions for studies that investigated dependent measures of reading and behavior and social skills outcomes. We extended the findings of previously conducted syntheses ( Nelson et al., 2011 ; Wanzek et al., 2006 ) by (a) including all students in Grades K-12, (b) broadening the criteria for type of literacy instruction, (c) including and systematically evaluating single-case design studies, (d) broadening the dependent measure requirement, and (e) not requiring a calculable effect size. The findings from group design studies reconfirmed the findings from the previous syntheses, suggesting that outcomes for students participating in reading interventions have positive effect sizes for reading outcomes and small or negative effect sizes for behavior and social skill outcomes. The findings of single-case design studies utilizing Horner and colleagues (2012) criteria for visual analysis indicated little evidence in support of reading interventions positively affecting behavior or social skill outcomes with the exception of two studies (see Table 4 ; Kamps et al., 1994 ; Lane et al., 2002 ). This finding was contrary to findings from Wanzek et al. (2006) , which, based on single-case and single-group studies of reading interventions, indicated the possibility of improving behavior and social skill outcomes.

The findings from this synthesis indicated that reading interventions tended to improve outcomes for participants on reading measures but were not associated with improvements in behavioral or social skill measures. The reading interventions represented in this synthesis included phonics, PA and phonics, phonics and fluency, multicomponent comprehension, and other approaches (e.g., FBA). Regardless of intervention type, improvements in reading outcomes were consistent. The majority of studies did not report improvements in behavior or social skill outcomes. In addition, when comparing the associations between reading-only interventions and outcomes of reading and behavior or social skills, the findings consistently revealed improvements in reading with no improvements in behavior or social skill outcomes with the exception of two studies (see Table 4 ) ( Kamps et al., 1994 ; Lane et al., 2002 ).

When considering the WWC determinants of study ratings, four of the group design studies were classified as meets WWC standards without reservations ( Lane, Fletcher, et al., 2007 ; Nelson et al., 2005 ; O’Shaughnessy & Swanson, 2000 ; Strayhorn & Bickel, 2002 ) and three were classified as does not meet WWC standards ( Feldman, 1981 ; Gest & Gest, 2005 ; Scruggs & Osguthorpe, 1986 ). For the single-case design studies, two studies met the criteria for meets WWC standards without reservations ( Kamps et al., 1994 ; Lane, Little, et al., 2007 ), three studies did not meet WWC standards ( Beck et al., 2009 ; Burke et al., 2003 ; Scott & Shearer-Lingo, 2002 ), two studies had ratings that varied by measure used ( Lingo et al., 2006 ; Wehby et al., 2003 ), and one study’s visual analysis was unavailable, therefore no study rating was determined ( Lane et al., 2002 ). However, regardless of quality classification, the finding of improvements on reading measures with no associated improvements for behavior or social skills remained consistent.

In summary, findings from this synthesis suggest that reading instruction alone may not be sufficient to improve behavior or social skill outcomes. Studies included in this study provide insufficient evidence of the hypothesized model that reading problems cause behavior problems ( Hinshaw, 1992 ; Spira & Fischel, 2005 ) as the many methods of analysis showed that improving reading did not tend to also improve behavior or social skill outcomes.

Limitations

This synthesis has limitations similar to Wanzek et al. (2006) and Nelson et al. (2011) in that there was, overall, (a) a lack of total number of studies, (b) a lack of high quality of studies based on the WWC study determinants ( IES, 2014 ), and (c) methodological limitations (e.g., insufficient information provided to recalculate effect sizes). In addition, it is possible that some studies did not report the use of a behavioral independent variable in their methods such as the use of a token economy with some or all participants. The lack of studies warrants caution when interpreting the results from this synthesis. Methodological issues in comparing across single-case design studies arise as there is no agreed upon effect size calculation for these studies ( Horner et al., 2012 ), and with a limited number of group design studies that included enough information for a calculable effect size ( n = 3; Lane et al., 2007 ; Nelson et al., 2005 ; O’Shaughnessy & Swanson, 2000 ), comparing findings across these studies is problematic.

Overall, more research needs to be done in exploring the relationship between reading deficits and problem behavior to address these limitations.

Implications for Future Research and Practice

The findings from this synthesis suggest that further research is needed to adequately answer the research questions raised in this synthesis. Considering that (a) problem behaviors are one of the most reliable predictors of negative outcomes in response to intervention ( Torgesen et al., 1999 ), (b) there is a negative relationship between students who respond to intensive reading interventions and problem behavior ( Hagan-Burke et al., 2011 ), and (c) a limited number of studies in this synthesis were classified as meets WWC standards without reservations, new studies with robust research designs are needed to explore the relationship between reading and behavioral outcomes. This relationship should also be further explored in Grades 6 to 12 as only two studies ( Lingo et al., 2006 ; Scott & Shearer-Lingo, 2002 ) investigated the effects of reading interventions on behavior or social skill outcomes in older students. We also suggest examining the long-term effects of improved reading outcomes on social-behavioral functioning as the effects of improved reading may require more time to influence social-behavioral outcomes.

Finally, future research could explore differences in behavior and social skill outcomes based on the type of measures used (i.e., direct, indirect) and the behavior measured (i.e., externalizing, internalizing, social skills). For type of measure used, direct measures (e.g., observations) were used in all single-case design studies and two of the group design studies ( Feldman, 1981 ; Lane, Fletcher, et al., 2007 ) and measured either externalizing behavior or social skills. Indirect measures (e.g., teacher survey) were used in the remaining group design studies with only two studies measuring internalizing behaviors ( Nelson et al., 2005 ; Scruggs & Osguthorpe, 1986 ). Differences in outcomes between single-case deign and group designs could be based on measure type and/or the behavior measured as direct measures of social behavior have low to moderate correlations with indirect measures ( Cost & Simpson, 2004 ) and externalizing and internalizing behaviors each have unique behavior patterns ( Hinshaw, 1992 )

Acknowledgments

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by Grant P50 HD052117-07 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Biographies

Garrett J. Roberts is a project coordinator and doctoral student at The Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk at The University of Texas at Austin. Currently, he coordinates large-scale research projects. His research interests include academic and behavioral interventions, as well as effective instructional practices to support all learners.

Michael Solis is an assistant professor of special education in the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia. He is experienced in running experimental and single-case design studies. His line of research focuses on vocabulary and reading comprehension interventions for students with reading difficulties in Grades 4 to 12.

Stephen Ciullo is an assistant professor at Texas State University in the curriculum and instruction department. His research focuses on improving content-area literacy outcomes for students in Grades 4 to 8 with learning disabilities and students in high-needs schools.

John W. McKenna is an assistant professor at St. John’s University. His primary research interests are positive behavior supports and effective instructional strategies for students with Emotional Behavior Disorder (EBD) and students at risk. He is also interested in responsible inclusion and wraparound services.

Sharon Vaughn , H. E. Hartfelder/Southland Corp. Regents chair in human development, is the executive director of The Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk, an organized research unit at The University of Texas at Austin. She is the recipient of numerous awards and has authored more than 250 research articles.

Authors’ Note

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development or the National Institutes of Health.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Evaluating the effectiveness of a broader approach to reading instruction: A single-case study of a reading intervention

2023, Educational and Child Psychology

This small-scale study investigated outcomes from a reading intervention which taught a broader range of reading skills. The intervention followed recommendations made by Solity (2020), with instruction on high frequency words (HFWs), grapheme-phoneme correspondences (GPCs), and vocabulary, taught through frequent, distributed practise of skills and real books. Method: Five students in Year Five (all with English as an Additional Language and low levels of literacy skills) from an inner London Borough primary school took part in a reading intervention delivered daily over 3 months (45 sessions). A mixed methods single-case study design was implemented. Students were assessed pre-and post-intervention using interviews, Diagnostic Reading Assessment, questionnaires on students' reading views and confidence, and fluency reading the 100 HFWs and GPCs. Questionnaire and interview feedback were gained from education staff. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Themes and quotes from qualitative data provided an understanding of the students' and staffs' views. Findings: Results indicated increases in students' knowledge of HFWs and GPCs, and students showed improvements in reading ability in at least one skill assessed. Most students felt they were better and more confident at reading, although views towards reading were mixed. Limitations: The small sample size and lack of control group mean that results may be difficult to generalise to other school populations. Conclusions: This research goes some way to demonstrating the efficacy of a reading intervention approach which focuses on teaching a broader range of skills compared to a sole focus on systematic synthetic phonics.

Related Papers

BMJ Paediatrics Open

Janet Clinton

International Journal of Innovative Research and Development

Azlina Abdul Aziz

Morag Stuart

Heather Kempton

Debates about the most effective ways of teaching early readers have raged for more than half a century. In recent years, government in the UK and in some other English-speaking countries has promoted the teaching of “synthetic phonics” as the key to success in training young readers. Schools were offered government funding to buy approved materials and a new, statutory phonics screening &#39;check&#39; for all children in Year 1 was introduced. This check was widely criticised, and the governmental instruction to use synthetic phonics as the core reading method met considerable opposition from the profession. To discern the reasons for these concerns, and their validity, the UK National Association for the Teaching of English conducted an on-line survey of teachers&#39; views and practices in relation to the teaching and assessment of early reading. 445 respondents completed the survey. They were asked what weight they placed on phonics when assessing overall reading levels; whethe...

John Hodgson , Heather Kempton , David Gibbons (Nettleham Junior)

Debates about the most effective ways of teaching early readers have raged for more than half a century. In recent years, government in the UK and in some other English-speaking countries has promoted the teaching of “synthetic phonics” as the key to success in training young readers. Schools were offered government funding to buy approved materials and a new, statutory phonics screening 'check' for all children in Year 1 was introduced. This check was widely criticised, and the governmental instruction to use synthetic phonics as the core reading method met considerable opposition from the profession. To discern the reasons for these concerns, and their validity, the National Association for the Teaching of English conducted an on-line survey of teachers' views and practices in relation to the teaching and assessment of early reading. 445 respondents completed the survey. They were asked what weight they placed on phonics when assessing overall reading levels; whether the teaching of phonics impacted on the ways they taught reading and writing, and on the teaching of other subjects; and the impact (if any) that the increased focus on the teaching of phonics had had on comprehension, higher order reading skills, writing and spelling. Other questions included the provision of pupil support and the focus of any school inspection recently experienced. Finally - after giving their views on the purposes of the phonics check and on the way the results should be communicated to parents - respondents were offered an opportunity to communicate any further thoughts or concerns about these issues. A detailed account of these responses is followed by a discussion and evaluation of what they reveal about current practice in teaching early reading in the UK.

Ulrika Wolff

Journal of Research in Reading

Kathy Sylva

Dr Mike Beverley

This study describes the effectiveness of a brief intervention aimed at increasing the rate (frequency) of reading common English words for five pupils who were experiencing problems with reading. The intervention employed frequency-building procedures aimed at increasing the rate at which the children could read words accurately, and precision teaching (PT) to monitor the effectiveness of the intervention. The children in the treatment as usual (TAU) condition received the standard reading support during the same period. All of the pupils’ were tested at pre- and post-intervention on the frequency at which they could read words accurately, and all were given a standardised reading test. Following intervention the outcome measures for fluency were taken: maintenance, endurance, application, and stability. All five of the PT children increased their rate of accurate word reading, and two made significant gains on the standardised tests of reading; however, the TAU children did not im...

RELATED PAPERS

burcu altinel

Rina Zazkis

Advanced Materials

João Canejo

Ricardo Paredes

Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine

Dirk Becker

Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology

Maria Magdalena Lungu

Transplantation Proceedings

Q. McCormack

Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering

Matan Yossef

Annual Research Briefs

Jorg Schluter

Avaliação …

Jorge Nuno Falcão Falcao

JFL : Jurnal Farmasi Lampung

MASHURI YUSUF

American Heart Journal

Alan Kadish

Raul Ccanto

Mukesh Kumar

Sustainability

Judit T. kiss

Revista De Investigacion

Belén Osorio

Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

PARUL DOHARE

Annals of Intensive Care

神戸外大論叢 = The Kobe Gaidai Ronso : The Kobe City University Journal

Lori Zenuk-Nishide

Molecular and Clinical Oncology

Giovanni PONTI

Delgado Ari pires delgado

Nicole Toner

De musica disserenda

Eva Veselovska

JMIR Human Factors

Avishek Choudhury

Respiratory medicine case reports

Vittorio D'Emilio

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 07 February 2022

Reading skills intervention during the Covid-19 pandemic

• Ana Sucena 1 , 2 ,
• Ana Filipa Silva 1 , 2 &
• Cátia Marques 1 , 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  9 , Article number:  45 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

25k Accesses

7 Citations

10 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Language and linguistics

This paper diagnoses the reading skills at the onset of second grade after one (final) trimester of first grade, with online schooling as a result of COVID-19. It also describes and assesses the impact of a Reading Skills Consolidating Program conducted with second graders during the first weeks of the school year. This intervention program focuses on the promotion of letter-sound, phonemic awareness, decoding and spelling. The intervention was implemented with 446-second graders (224 boys and 208 girls), preceded and followed by a reading assessment. Results were analyzed with an intra (pre- and post-test) group design. A paired sample t -test indicated the presence of statistically significant differences between the two assessment moments, with higher values at the post-test. At the pre-test, there was a significantly higher than the normally expected percentage of students with a reading level on or below the 10th percentile along with a significantly worse performance among low Socioeconomic Status (SES) students. The post-test revealed a positive impact of the training program, as indicated by (i) a decrease to about half of the number of students at or below the 10th percentile, (ii) an increase of 20% of students with reading skills at or above the 30th percentile and (iii) the difference decrease in reading skills in a result of SES.

Similar content being viewed by others

What colour are your eyes? Teaching the genetics of eye colour & colour vision. Edridge Green Lecture RCOphth Annual Congress Glasgow May 2019

David A. Mackey

Impact of artificial intelligence on human loss in decision making, laziness and safety in education

Sayed Fayaz Ahmad, Heesup Han, … Antonio Ariza-Montes

Principal component analysis

Michael Greenacre, Patrick J. F. Groenen, … Elena Tuzhilina

The global pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019]) has completely changed education in many countries around the world (Reimer et al., 2021 ). Students had face-to-face instruction interrupted during the 2019–2020 school year due to the pandemic (Kuhfeld et al., 2021 ). The majority of schools provided some virtual instruction during the last months of school in 2019 (Lake and Dusseault, 2020 ), and the same scenario reoccurred at the beginning of 2021. Throughout this time, both educators and parents have been actively seeking the best way to continue formal education through remote or virtual learning (Daniel, 2020 ; Hodges et al., 2020 ; Reich et al., 2020 ). Nonetheless, it remains unclear how effective remote or virtual learning is (Viner et al., 2020 ).

Longer-term economic and societal implications of remote or virtual learning seem likely to be severe. Consequently, it will also have a direct impact on both short- and long-term school experiences and trajectories. For example, in short-term, research has shown that COVID-19 school closures will generate substantial learning losses, particularly for the lowest-achieving students (Bacher-Hicks et al., 2020; Chetty et al., 2020; Kuhfeld et al., 2021 ) and this can have long-term implications, since impairments in reading and writing acquisition skills have the potential to seriously limit personal aspirations (Jamshidifarsani et al., 2019 ). Furthermore, research anticipates that virtual learning will emphasize social inequality in student learning due to differences in children’s opportunities to learn at home (Bol, 2020 ), as many working parents were struggling to work and take care of their children at the same time (Harris, 2020 ). Parents identify personal, technical, logistical and financial barriers regarding the challenges of distance learning during the Pandemic (Abuhammad, 2020 ). Parents generally had negative beliefs about the benefits of online learning and preferred traditional learning in early childhood settings (Dong et al., 2020 ). Parents tended to resist online learning for four main reasons: the shortcomings of online learning, young children’s inadequate self-regulation, lack of time and professional knowledge for supporting children’s online learning (Dong et al., 2020 ). Summing up, research reports a close association between parental level of education and the ability to support children’s remote learning during the pandemic (Azubuike et al., 2021 ).

Children from disadvantaged families received much less academic support from their parents and were less likely to have access to necessary physical resources such as a computer or a tablet (Azubuike et al., 2021 ; Andrew et al., 2020 ; Bol, 2020 ). In Portugal, a report from the Court of Auditors (Machado et al., 2021 ) states that four in every five students did not have access to technological equipment and had difficulties with internet access. The Portuguese Ministry of Education acquired 100 thousand pieces of equipment, in March 2020, to be delivered to schools and then distributed to needy students. However, authorization for the acquisition and distribution of technological equipment was late (Machado et al., 2021 ). In January 2021, only 27% of the 100 thousand pieces of equipment had been delivered to the students. The Portuguese government answer did not come on time to strike the inequalities in digital literacy and access to technological equipment that the Pandemic imposed. Additional research based on the borrowing of children’s books from libraries shows that social inequality visibly increased during the lockdown (Jæger and Blaabæk, 2020 ; Reimer et al., 2021 ). Even though reading books to children does not substitute the critical role of formal education in teaching children how to read, the literature shows that children whose parents read to them daily during the pandemic, had less loss compared to those whose parents did not read to them (Bao et al., 2020 ). Consequently, differences in children’s reading activities during the pandemic might accelerate pre-existing social differences in children’s cognitive skills.

Based on these results, it is important to intervene as early as possible in order to help children that have seen their school year affected by the pandemic. If reading disabilities are not early addressed, difficulties tend to generalize to other domains, thus jeopardizing future knowledge acquisition (Raspin et al., 2019 ), exposing students to consecutive experiences of failure, thereby diminishing their motivation to learn (Lyytinen and Erskine, 2016 ). Conversely, when these difficulties are identified early and are accompanied by a prompt and intensive intervention, the likelihood of reversing trajectories is very high (Hall and Burns, 2018 ; Lyytinen, 2008 ).

In this study, we focus on an intervention program specifically designed for training second graders reading skills right from the beginning of the school year, after one (final) trimester of first grade with schools closed during the 2019–2020 school year.

The RSCP—Reading Skills Consolidation Program

This intervention program occurred as part of a broader project, aiming to intervene with kindergarteners, first and second graders. The main goal of the project, like other international ones (e.g., Jamshidifarsani et al., 2019 ; Solheim et al., 2018 ), is early intervention with children training the alphabetic principle through phonemic awareness and letter-sound correspondence (pre-reading skills), as well as the spelling and decoding processes (reading skills), which are the foundations for fluency and reading comprehension. These skills are aligned with the Portuguese guidelines for basic education (DGE, 2015 ).

The RSCP consists of ten activities, to be developed over five sessions, aiming to promote decoding competence. There were two intervention options: option A was aimed exclusively at promoting alphabetical decoding, targeting children with highly fragile skills (at letter-sound level); option B consisted of five sessions for the promotion of alphabetical decoding, later evolving to the developing of orthographic decoding, targeting children, also, with fragile skills (but in this case, with letter-sound knowledge already acquired). The choice of which option to adopt was made by the teacher based on the individual results of the reading assessment conducted before the intervention. One activity example of the intervention in option A is the “letters clothesline”. In this activity, the teacher hangs a set of letters on the clothesline (for example in this order: /p/, /m/, /v/, /j/, /d/ and /r/) and asks one student to throw the dice. Regarding the number the dice shows, another student has to write down a word that starts with the same letter (for example, the dice shows a six, which means, the student has to write a word that starts with the letter /r/). In the next round, another student throws the dice and another student spells a new word. An example of an activity in option B is the “change the syllables”. In this activity, the teacher writes a word in a roll (kitchen paper roll for example) and cut the roll into rings (one per syllable). Using a pen, the teacher hangs the rings in the pen to set a word and asks the student to read. In order to continue the activity, the teacher changes the syllable sequence. The program was implemented by educational and clinical professionals of the broader project, along with the classroom teacher, under the supervision of the coordinator of the project.

This study aims to diagnose the reading skills of children at the beginning of the second grade after the previous entire last trimester in first grade with closed schools, as well as to analyze whether the impact differed according to SES. We further present preliminary results regarding the impact of the RSCP, as a means of remediating (or ameliorating) the negative effects from the previous trimester.

Participants

At the pre-intervention assessment T1 (beginning of the school year - September) 542-second graders were assessed, 256 (47.2%) girls and 286 (52.8%) boys, attending public school (19 schools) in the North Coast of Portugal. From these, 280 (51.7%) students were attending NTEIP Schools Footnote 1 ( Territórios Educativos de Intervenção Não Prioritária [Non Priority Intervention Educational Territories] and 262 (48.3%) TEIP Schools ( Territórios Educativos de Intervenção Prioritária [Priority Intervention Educational Territories]). At the post-intervention T2, 446 students were assessed, 224 (50.2%) boys and 208 (46.6%) girls, in 17 schools. Of these, 200 (44.8%) belong to NTEIP School Groupings and 262 (55.2%) to TEIP School Groupings. A description of the participants per School Grouping is presented in Table 1 .

Instruments

Demographic variables were assessed through a survey built for that purpose (e.g., age, sex, school, SES). The SES was assessed by the type of school (NTEIP/TEIP). Children from NTEIP were considered from average SES and children from TEIP from low SES. Participants were assessed regarding reading skills with the Teste de Rastreio de Leitura -TRL [Screening Test for Reading] (Silva et al., 2020 ). TRL is an early reading ability screening test, developed for Portuguese speaking first graders. The test consists of 30 incomplete sentences (items), which the reader must read and complete by selecting one of four given alternatives using multiple choice. Across the four alternatives, one is the target word and the remaining three are distractors. Distractors are words or pseudowords that are visually and/or phonologically close to the target word. (e.g.,“ Paga o bolo com a: noda, mopa, bota, nota ” [Pay the cake with the: noda/mopa/boot/money - the additional options are pseudowords]; or “ O pai vai à : jola, mola, loja, dota” [The father goes to the: jola, clothespin, store, dota]). From the 30 sentences (items), 20 are orthographically simple words (words with consonant-vowel structure, e.g., boca [mouth]), and 10 are orthographically complex words (words with consonant-vowel-consonant - festa-; consonant- diphthong –bailado-; and consonant-consonant-vowel – florista -). The total score corresponds to the total number of sentences completed correctly by the child in five minutes. The maximum score is 30 points.

Procedures of data collection and data analysis

Authorizations were obtained from the school board and parents/legal guardians. The assessment goals were presented to parents/legal guardians, and the confidentiality of the data processing was guaranteed. Participants were administered the assessment tasks individually before the beginning of the intervention (in the last 2 weeks of September 2020) and after the intervention (5 weeks later). All second graders of 19 schools located on the North Coast of Portugal were selected for the intervention. Students included in the intervention program were not receiving any extra intervention regarding reading and writing abilities. There was a decrease between the number of participants who were evaluated at the beginning of the school year and those who completed the intervention as a result of quarantining measures ( n  = 96, 18%). As a result of COVID-19 outbreaks, entire classes and/or the teacher were confined at home so the post-assessment was not conducted with all participants assessed at pre-test.

Statistical analyses were performed through the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences for Windows, version 26.0. Statistical analyses were used to characterize the participants according to SES. A paired sample t -test to verify the effect of time on reading skills was conducted. Before running this test, we verified the fulfillment of normal distribution. Once fulfillment of normal distribution was not verified, non-parametric tests were conducted. When the results of non-parametric tests showed the same conclusions (rejection of the null hypothesis), the results of the parametric tests were reported.

Time 1—pre-intervention

At the pre-intervention assessment, the mean of accurate answers in the TRL was 12.3 (SD = 10). The distribution of the TRL results per percentile is described in Table 2 . We can observe that 27% of the students had reading skills at or below P10, a percentage that increases to 45% if we set the cut-off point at results equal to or less than P30.

At the beginning of the second-grade average SES children presented significantly better reading results than low SES children t (540) = 2.46 p  = 0.01 (Table 3 ).

In Table 4 the percentile distribution is detailed according to the SES. We can observe a higher percentage of children with results at P10 or below in low SES (31.7% vs. 21.8%); conversely, results above the P30 are lower for low SES in comparison to average SES children (50 vs. 58.9%).

Time 2—post-intervention

Table 5 describes the TRL result before and after the intervention. Since the number of students assessed decreased between pre-test and post-test, from this section forward, we will focus exclusively on the results of the 446 students, evaluated in both assessment moments, and, cumulatively enrolled in all sessions of the intervention. In the pre-intervention, the accuracy in the TRL ranged between 11 and 13 (respectively, low SES and average SES). After the intervention, there was a statistically significant increase, both in average SES t (445) = 17.00 p  < 0.001 and in low SES t (445) = 15.56 p  < 0.001. Post-test indicates the absence of statistical differences between average and low SES t (444)=1.52 p  = 0.13.

The distribution on the TRL by percentile intervals at T1 and T2 is described in Table 6 . Concerning reading skills at or below P10, there was a decrease of more than 10% (from 26% to 13%, respectively at T1 and T2). There was an increase of 20% for results higher than the P30 (from 53.4% to 73.1%, respectively).

Table 7 describes the percentile distribution by low and average SES after the intervention. We verify a decrease in the percentage of students with reading skills at or below P10 between T1 and T2 for both low and average SES children. In the same way, the percentage of children with results above the P30 increased between T1 and T2, both in low and on average SES. In the post-intervention, there was no statistical difference between low and average SES t (444) = 1.52 p  = 0.13.

This study aimed to diagnose the reading skills of second graders at the beginning of the school year after the major lockdown in schools in consequence of the Pandemic, as well as to assess the impact of a reading intervention program—RSCP—with the same group of children. Both the first assessment and the onset of the intervention took place in September 2021, after an entire final trimester in first grade with a learning scenario drastically changed, as the schools were closed and online teaching took place (instead of face to face). RSCP was developed to contribute to a national effort to diminish the negative consequences of the extended school closing, specifically developed for promoting alphabetic and orthographic decoding.

At the beginning of first grade, the average accuracy in the TRL was 12.3 (SD = 10), in line with the reference results expected at the end of first grade ( M  = 11; DP = 6.2, Silva et al., 2020). A closer look at the results, specifically analyzing the distribution of children across the different reading percentiles, reveals a worrying fact: 45% of the second graders started the school year (pre-test) with results under the P30. More dramatically, over one fourth presented a reading level at or below the 10th percentile.

An inspection of the results according to SES reveals that in the pre-test average SES children had significantly better accuracy compared with low SES children. This result is in line with Portuguese data that reports low SES students are in general characterized as having more reading difficulties and worse reading competencies than their average SES peers (DGE, 2021 ; CIES and ISCTE, 2011 ). These results might suggest that children with disadvantaged backgrounds (TEIP type of schools) have probably received less academic support from their parents and were less likely to have access to necessary physical resources (e.g., computer or tablet) during the lockdown (Andrew et al., 2020 ; Bol, 2020 ). In Portugal, some families from disadvantaged backgrounds received physical resources from the Portuguese Education Ministry (Machado et al., 2021 ) such as computers or tablets in order to help their children in attending online classes. However, some families did not know how to use those resources or did not have the availability to support children with simple chores such as turning on the computer and accessing the class. These results confirm that the pandemic increased the inequality in students’ reading skills (Bol, 2020 ), in line with previous research documenting that during long periods of school interruption such as summer vacations, low SES children had a slower rate of reading ability gain compared to children from high socioeconomic background families (Cooper et al., 1996 ). Results obtained at the beginning of the school year confirm that the Pandemic increased the tendency for a correlation between academic achievement and SES (Bacher-Hicks et al., 2020 ; Chetty et al., 2020 ; Kuhfeld et al., 2021 ), with the children from lower SES having worse academic achievement.

After the intervention (post-test), reading skills significantly increased for all children. Whereas at the pre-test, 46% of the children had reading skills below P30, at the post-test this percentage decreased to 27%. In addition, after the intervention, there were no statistically significant differences between children according to SES. These results are promising once a specific type of reading intervention during the first 5-week period of the second grade seems able to mitigate the effects of the school closures from the previous trimester, particularly when it comes to the factor of SES.

It was alarming to confirm that children from disadvantaged backgrounds were exactly the ones in worse conditions to overcome these difficulties, as indicated by the pre-intervention assessment. On the other hand, results indicate that an early, systematic and intensive intervention focusing on promoting decoding had a positive impact on reading skills in a short time. The authors expect that this program will be adopted on the early intervention for reading acquisition, thus contributing to promoting confident learners, willing to be fluent readers.

In the present study, concerning the urgency of the pandemic situation, it was the authors’ option not to select any children for a non-intervention condition. In future studies, it is important to compare the reading skills between at-risk children subject and non-subject to the RSCP. We hope to have contributed to the first of many studies developing and accessing reading promotion intensive programs, based on scientifically informed strategies. Future studies should also analyze the relationship between parents’ involvement during the lockdown, as well as the number of technological equipment’s available.

At the beginning of the second grade, after a most atypical first grade affected by the sanitary measures to face the Pandemic, with schools closed for the entire last trimester, an alarming result regarding reading skills was found: over one fourth had poor reading skills, with children from low SES family background significantly more affected. As a response to these results, the authors of this paper develop an intervention program to promote decoding skills during the initial 5 weeks of the school period defined by the Portuguese Ministry of Education as a period of consolidation.

The 5 weeks intervention was very positive, resulting in a significant improvement in reading skills, with an increase of 20 percentual points (53 to 23%) regarding reading abilities above P30 and a decrease of more than 10 percentual points at or below P10 (from 26 to 13%). Also, the 5 weeks intervention resulted inequality across SES. Our results highlight the need for educators and policymakers to address additional difficulties, where early intervention should take place with those children affected by the pandemic. Educators and policymakers will need to find ways for mass assessment. During the next school year, educators will need to adopt effective strategies to work with those most affected by the school closures. As for decoding, RSCP may be adopted as a complementary strategy, along with those adopted in the regular classroom syllabus. We expect to contribute to the growing important publication trend that empowers school leaders, policymakers, and researchers on their quest for urgent evidence-informed post–COVID-19 recovery decisions.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

The NTEIP/TEIP program is a Portuguese government initiative, currently implemented in schools located in economically and socially disadvantaged territories, marked by poverty and social exclusion, where violence, indiscipline, abandonment and school failure are most evident (TEIP schools). The main goal of the program is to prevent and to reduce early school dropout and the indiscipline (DGE, 2021 ; CIES and ISCTE, 2011 ) and improving school grades of the students in the TEIP schools. This is a positive discrimination program aimed at supporting schools located in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. The strategy of the TEIP program is based on a decentralizing model, focusing on the territory, with the school as a central element in supporting the resolution of community problems (CIES and ISCTE, 2011 ).

Abuhammad S (2020) Barriers to distance learning during the COVID-19 outbreak: a qualitative review from parents’ perspective. Heliyon 6(05482):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05482

Andrew A, Cattan S, Costa-Dias M, Farquharson C, Kraftman L, Krutikova S, Sevilla A (2020) Learning during the lockdown: Real-time data on children’s experiences during home learning. IFS briefing note BN288, London

Google Scholar  

Azubuike OB, Adegboye O, Quadri H (2021) Who gets to learn in a pandemic? Exploring the digital divide in remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic in Nigeria. Int J Educ Res Open 2(100022):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100022

Article   Google Scholar  

Bacher-Hicks A, Goodman J, Mulhern C (2020) Inequality in household adaptation to schooling shocks: COVID-induced online learning engagement in real time. National Bureau of Economic Research, 27555, 1–35. http://www.nber.org/papers/w27555

Bao X, Qu H, Zhang R, Hogan T (2020) Modeling reading ability gain in kindergarten children during COVID-19 school closures. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17(6371):1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176371

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Bol T (2020) Inequality in homeschooling during the Corona crisis in the Netherlands. First results from the LISS Panel. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/hf32q

Centro de Investigação e Estudos de Sociologia (CIES) & Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE) (2011) Efeitos TEIP: Avaliação de impactos escolares e sociais em sete territórios educativos de intervenção prioritária. Retrieved from: https://www.dge.mec.pt/sites/default/files/EPIPSE/estudoteip_sintese.pdf (accessed on 23 Mar 2021)

Chetty R, Friedman JN, Hendren N, Stepner M, The Opportunity Insights Team (2020) The economic impacts of COVID-19: Evidence from a new public database built using private sector data. National Bureau of Economic Research, 27431:1–109. https://doi.org/10.3386/w27431

Cooper H, Nye B, Charlton K, Lindsay J, Greathouse S (1996) The effects of summer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 3:227–268. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066003227

Daniel SJ (2020) Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects 1:1–6

Direção Geral da Educação – DGE (2015) Metas curriculares de Português: Ensino básico 1.° Ciclo. Retrieved 06 outubro, 2021, from https://www.dge.mec.pt/sites/default/files/Basico/Metas/Portugues/1_ciclo_leitura_escrita.pdf

Direção-Geral da Educação (DGE) (2021) Linhas orientadoras para elaboração do PPM 2018-2021. Retrived from: http://www.dge.mec.pt/documentos-de-referencia-1

Dong C, Cao S, Li H (2020) Young children’s online learning during COVID-19 pandemic: Chinese parents’ beliefs and attitudes. Children and Youth Services Review, 118(105440):2–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105440

Hall M, Burns M (2018) Meta-analysis of targeted small-group reading interventions. J School Psychol 66(1):54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.11.002

Harris EA (2020, April 27) It was just too much: How remote learning is breaking parents. The New York Times. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/27/nyregion/coronavirus-homeschoolingparents.htm (accessed on 23 Mar 2021)

Hodges C, Moore S, Lockee B, Trust T, Bond A (2020) The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Retrieved from: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-betweenemergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning (accessed on 23 Mar 2021)

Jæger MM, Blaabæk EH (2020) Inequality in learning opportunities during Covid-19: Evidence from library takeout. Res Soc Strat Mobil 68:100524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2020.100524

Jamshidifarsani H, Garbaya S, Lim T, Blazevic P, Ritchie J (2019) Technology-based reading intervention programs for elementar grades: An analytical review. Comput Educ 128(1):427–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.003

Kuhfeld M, Soland J, Tarasawa B, Johnson A, Ruzek E, Liu J (2021) Projecting the potential impact of COVID-19 school closures on academic achievement. Educ Res 49(8):549–565. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20965918

Lake R, Dusseault B (2020a, April 27) Remote classes are in session for more school districts, but attendance plans are still absent. Center for Reinventing Public Education. Retrieved from: https://www.crpe.org/thelens/remote-classes-are-session-more-school-districts-attendance-plansare-still-absent

Lyytinen H (2008) New Technologies and interventions for learning difficulties: Dyslexia in Finnish as a case study. In: Foresight Mental Capital and Wellbeing Project: The Government Office for Science. Government Office for Science, London, UK

Lyytinen H, Erskine J (2016) Early identification and prevention of reading problems. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development, 1–5. Retrieved from http://www.childencyclopedia.com/documents/Lyytinen-ErskineANGxp.pdf

Machado F, Alves C, Arantes A (2021) Ensinoa distância e digitalização nas escolas durante a pandemia: Uma resposta rápidae adaptada à pandemia, mas limitada pela insuficiência de competências e meiosdigitais a requerer investimentos. [Online learning and digitalization inschools during the Pandemic: A quick and adapted response to the pandemic, butlimited by the insufficiency of digital skills and means requiring investments.Tribunal de contas [Audit Office] 9(2):1–66. https://www.tcontas.pt/pt-pt/ProdutosTC/Relatorios/RelatoriosAuditoria/Documents/2021/rel009-2021-2s.pdf

Raspin S, Smallwood R, Hatfield S, Boesley L (2019) Exploring the use of the ARROW literacy intervention for looked after children in a UK local authority. Educ Psychol Pract 35(4):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2019.1632172

Reich J, Buttimer CJ, Fang A, Hillaire GE, Hirsch K, Larke L, Littenberg-Tobias J, Moussapour RM, Napier A, Thompson M (2020) Remote learning guidance from state education agencies during the COVID-19 pandemic: A first look. Retrieved from: https://edarxiv.org/437e2 (accessed on 23 Mar 2021)

Reimer D, Smith E, Andersen IG, Sortkaer B (2021) What happens when schools shut down? Investigating inequality in students’ reading behavior during Covid-19 in Denmark. Res Soc Stratif Mobil 71(100568):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2020.100568

Silva AF, Marques C, Sucena A (2020) Validity Evidence of the Reading Screening Test for Portuguese First Graders. Frontiers in Education, 5(570639):1–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.570639

Solheim O, Frijters J, Lundetrae K, Uppstad P (2018) Effectiveness of an early reading intervention in a semi-transparent orthography: A group randomised controlled trial. Learn Instruct 58(1):65–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.05.004

Viner RM, Russell SJ, Croker H, Packer J, Ward J, Stansfield C, Mytton O, Bonell C, Booy R (2020) School closure and management practices during coronavirus outbreaks including COVID-19: A rapid systematic review. Lancet Child Adolesc Health 4:397–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30095-X

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by European Horizon 2020, under OPERAÇÃO NORTE-08- 5266-FSE349 000095.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Polytechnic Institute of Porto, Porto, Portugal

Ana Sucena, Ana Filipa Silva & Cátia Marques

Research and Intervention Reading Centre, Porto, Portugal

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana Sucena .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval

Ethical approval was not required for the study in accordance with institutional requirements. Previous authorizations by the Portuguese Education Ministry were provided.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants and their legal guardians.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Sucena, A., Silva, A.F. & Marques, C. Reading skills intervention during the Covid-19 pandemic. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 9 , 45 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01059-x

Download citation

Received : 06 July 2021

Accepted : 18 January 2022

Published : 07 February 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01059-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Activation of content-schemata for scaffolding l2 writing: voices from a turkish context.

• Elmaziye Özgür Küfi

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies